What’s at stake: “The question for progressives is
how to construct a compelling alternative to the Cold War model as much of the
world slides towards a new Dark Age of class struggle, climate crisis and
religious fundamentalism appearing on many continents.” Tom Hayden

CONNECTION
BETWEEN US ENCIRCLEMENT OF CHINA AND RUSSIA: See OMNI’s newsletters/blogs on US
Imperialism Westward Pacific/E. Asia, on Iran, and related subjects.

Contents of Newsletter #4 at end.

Contents of Russia/Ukraine Newsletter #5

Threats Up and Down, Hawks’ Incitements to
War 2014-2015

(In
chronological order)

President
Obama To Travel to Estonia 8-16-14

NATO
to Send Troops to E. Ukraine 9-2-14

Borowitz,
Putin Doesn’t Answer Obama’s Calls 9-2-14

Al
Jazeera, Pro-Russian Rebels Lower Demands
9-2-14

Cohen,
Silence of US Hawks Over Atrocities in Kiev
2015

NATO
Commander U.S. General Breedlove vs. Chancellor Merkel 2015

Steven
Hurst, Cold War Never Ended, NATO Expansion the Problem 2015

Identifying
the Belligerents 2015

Geopolitical Zones of
Influence

Interview of Sergey
Marcedonov

Hayden, Roots
of the New Cold War

KNOWING
THE PRESENT AND FUTURE BY UNDERSTANDING THE PAST

Trauger,
MH17 No Re-run of KAL007 But Resembles Iran Air 655

PEACEFUL
ALTERNATIVES TO WAR

The Nation, Cold War Resuming? Choose Diplomacy.

Bloomberg News, Ask for United Nations Peacekeeping
Forces

Contents
of Newsletter No. 4

INCITEMENTS
TO WAR

PRESIDENT OBAMA
TO VISIT ESTONIA

OBAMA
TO ESTONIA, August 16, 2014

“President
Barack Obama will travel to Estonia during the first week of September to
reassure Baltic allies that they have the support of the United States, the
White House said, as tensions arise over Russia’s intervention in
Ukraine.” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (August 16, 2014). On almost the same day, Army Gen. Martin
Dempsey became the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to visit Vietnam
since 1971, seeking to boost military ties.
What are our leaders doing? Do
they know nothing about zones of influence—the Monroe Doctrine for
instance.

The continued
violence in Ukraine comes ahead of a NATO summit in Britain later this
week. NATO
officials[DB1] say they plan to approve a 4,000-member
force that could be rapidly deployed to eastern Europe in response to
"Russia’s aggressive behavior."

Members
of the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party rally in Kiev (Reuters/Maxim
Zmeyev)

Kiev’s Atrocities and the Silence
of the Hawks

We may honorably disagree about
how to resolve the crisis—but not about deeds that are rising to the level of
war crimes.

For weeks, the
US-backed regime in Kiev has been committing atrocities against its own
citizens in southeastern Ukraine, a region heavily populated by
Russian-speaking Ukrainians and ethnic Russians. While victimizing a growing
number of innocent people, including children, and degrading America’s
reputation, these military assaults against cities, captured on video, are
generating intense pressure in Russia on President Vladimir Putin to “save our
compatriots.” Both the atrocities and the pressure on Putin have increased
since July 1, when Kiev, after a brief cease-fire, intensified its artillery
and air attacks on eastern cities defenseless against such weapons.

The reaction of
the Obama administration, as well as the new Cold War hawks in Congress and the
establishment media, has been twofold: silence, interrupted only by occasional
statements excusing and thus encouraging more atrocities by Kiev. Very few
Americans have protested this shameful complicity. We may honorably disagree
about the causes and resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, the worst US-Russian
confrontation in decades, but not about deeds that are rising to the level of
war crimes, if they have not done so already.

In mid-April,
the new Kiev government, predominantly western Ukrainian in composition and
outlook, declared an “anti-terrorist operation” against a growing political
rebellion in the southeast. At that time, the rebels were mostly mimicking the
initial 2013 protests in Kiev—demonstrating, issuing defiant proclamations,
occupying public buildings and erecting defensive barricades—before Maidan
turned ragingly violent and, in February, overthrew Ukraine’s corrupt but
legitimately elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. Indeed, the precedent for
seizing official buildings and demanding the allegiance of local authorities,
even declaring “independence,” had been set earlier, in January, in central and
western Ukraine—by pro-Maidan, anti-Yanukovych protesters. Reports suggest that
some cities in these regions, almost ignored by the international media, are
still controlled by extreme nationalists, not Kiev.

Considering
those preceding events—but above all the country’s profound historical
divisions, particularly between its western and eastern regions—the rebellion
in the southeast was not surprising. Nor were its protests against the
unconstitutional way (in effect, a coup) that the new government had come to
power; the southeast’s sudden loss of effective political representation in the
capital; and the real prospect of official discrimination. But by declaring an
“anti-terrorist operation” against the new protesters, Kiev signaled its
intention to “destroy” them, not negotiate.

On May 2, in
this incendiary atmosphere, a horrific event occurred in the southern city of
Odessa, awakening memories of Nazi German extermination squads in Ukraine and
other Soviet republics during World War II. An organized pro-Kiev mob chased
protesters into a building, set it on fire and tried to block the exits. Some
forty people, perhaps many more, perished in the flames or were murdered as
they fled the inferno.

Members of the
infamous Right Sector, a far-right paramilitary organization ideologically
aligned with the ultranationalist Svoboda party—itself a constituent part of
Kiev’s coalition government—led the mob. Both are frequently characterized by
knowledgeable observers as “neofascist” movements. Kiev alleged that the
victims had themselves accidentally started the fire, but eyewitnesses,
television footage and social-media videos told the true story, as they have
about subsequent atrocities.

Instead of
interpreting the Odessa massacre as an imperative for restraint, Kiev
intensified its “anti-terrorist operation.” Since May, the regime has sent a
growing number of armored personnel carriers, tanks, artillery, helicopter
gunships and warplanes to southeastern cities. When its regular military units
and local police forces turned out to be less than effective, willing or loyal,
Kiev hastily mobilized Right Sector and other radical nationalist militias
responsible for much of the violence at Maidan into a National Guard to
accompany regular detachments. Zealous, barely trained, and drawn mostly from
the central and western regions, Kiev’s new recruits have escalated the ethnic
warfare and killing of innocent civilians.

Initially, the
“anti-terrorist” campaign was limited primarily to rebel checkpoints on the
outskirts of cities. Since May, however, Kiev has repeatedly carried out
artillery and air attacks on city centers. More and more urban areas,
neighboring towns, and even villages now look and sound like agonized war
zones. Conflicting information makes it impossible to estimate the number of
dead and wounded noncombatants, but Kiev’s figure of nearly 2,000 is almost
certainly too low. The number continues to grow due also to Kiev’s blockade of
cities where essential medicines, food, water, fuel and electricity are scarce.
The result is an emerging humanitarian catastrophe.

Another effect
is clear: Kiev’s “anti-terrorist” tactics have created a reign of terror in the
targeted cities. Even The New York Times, which like the mainstream
American media in general has deleted the atrocities from its coverage,
described the survivors in Slovyansk living “as if…in the Middle Ages.” An
ever-growing number of refugees, disproportionately women and traumatized
children, have been desperately fleeing the carnage. In late June, the United
Nations estimated that as many as 110,000 Ukrainians had fled across the border
to Russia—where authorities said the number was much larger—and about half that
many to other Ukrainian sanctuaries. By mid-July, roads and trains were filled
with refugees from newly besieged Luhansk and Donetsk, a city of 1 million and
already ”a ghostly shell.”

It is true, of
course, that the anti-Kiev rebels in these regions, though lacking the
government’s arsenal of heavy and airborne weapons, are aggressive, organized
and well armed—no doubt with some Russian assistance, whether officially
sanctioned or not. But calling themselves “self-defense” fighters is not wrong.
They did not begin the combat; their land is being invaded and assaulted by a
government whose political legitimacy is arguably no greater than their own,
two of their large regions having voted overwhelmingly for autonomy
referendums; and, unlike actual terrorists, they have not committed acts of war
outside their own communities.

*
* *

Kiev’s Atrocities
and the Silence of the Hawks

We may honorably
disagree about how to resolve the crisis—but not about deeds that are
rising to the level of war crimes.

Stephen F. Cohen

July 15, 2014 |
This article appeared in the August 4-11, 2014 edition of The
Nation.

Top
NATO commander General Philip Breedlove has raised hackles in Germany with his
public statements about the Ukraine crisis. AP
March 6, 2015.

US President
Obama supports Chancellor Merkel's efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to
the Ukraine crisis. But hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin's
approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either.

It was quiet in
eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended
stretch of relative calm. The battles between the Ukrainian army and the
pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped and heavy weaponry was being
withdrawn. The Minsk cease-fire wasn't holding perfectly, but it was holding.

On that same
day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before
the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again
"upped the ante" in eastern Ukraine -- with "well over a
thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated
air defense, battalions of artillery" having been sent to the Donbass.
"What is clear," Breedlove said, "is that right now, it is not
getting better. It is getting worse every day."

German leaders
in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking
about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government,
supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND),
Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme
Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The pattern has
become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian
activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the
amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over
again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the
possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly
into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

The German
government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at
mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have
referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign
Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up
Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

The 'Super
Hawk'

But Breedlove
hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see
others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine
conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European
affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington
deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well
as many powerful Democrats.

Indeed, US
President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind
Merkel's diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to
quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons
to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove's bellicose comments are
first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has
the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the
pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

German
Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Barack Obama after a Feb. 9 meeting
in Washington: Increasing pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic
partners. Zoom

Getty Images

German Chancellor
Angela Merkel and US President Barack Obama after a Feb. 9 meeting in
Washington: Increasing pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic
partners.

A mixture of
political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary. But for months now,
many in the Chancellery simply shake their heads each time NATO, under
Breedlove's leadership, goes public with striking announcements about Russian
troop or tank movements. To be sure, neither Berlin's Russia experts nor BND
intelligence analysts doubt that Moscow is supporting the pro-Russian
separatists. The BND even has proof of such support.

The Cold War didn't end. The East-West showdown over Ukraine makes
that clear. As the non-Russian republics and Eastern European Soviet satellite
countries broke free following the Soviet collapse, common wisdom held the Cold
War was over. The victors: The US and Europe were bound together in the NATO
alliance to block further Soviet expansion. But as Moscow feared -- despite Western
assurances that would not happen -- NATO has been relentlessly pressing
eastward and encircling Russia.

NATO
Expansion after Cold War at Heart of Crisis in UkraineSteven R. Hurst / The Associated Press & Stars and Stripes

WASHINGTON (February 13, 2015) -- The Cold War didn't end. It just took on a
24-year pause. The East-West showdown over Ukraine makes that clear.

As the non-Russian republics broke free in the Soviet collapse and Eastern
European Soviet satellite countries snapped the chains of Moscow's dominion,
common wisdom held the Cold War was over. The victors: The United States and
its European allies -- bound together in the NATO alliance to block further
Soviet expansion in Europe after World War II.

Since the Soviet collapse -- as Moscow had feared -- that alliance has spread
eastward, expanding along a line from Estonia in the north to Romania and
Bulgaria in the south. The Kremlin claims it had Western assurances that would
not happen. Now, Moscow's only buffers to a complete NATO encirclement on its
western border are Finland, Belarus and Ukraine.

The Kremlin would not have to be paranoid to look at that map with concern. And
Russia reacted dramatically early last year. US-Russian relations have fallen
back into the dangerous nuclear and political standoff of the Cold War years
before the Soviet collapse.

The turmoil began when Ukraine's corrupt, Russia-friendly President Viktor
Yanukovych backed out of an agreement with the European Union for closer trade
and political ties and instead accepted Russian guarantees of billions of
dollars in financial aid. That led to prolonged pro-Western demonstrations in
the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. The upheaval caused Yanukovych to flee to Moscow a
year ago.

When a new, pro-Western government took power in Ukraine, Russia reacted by
seizing the Crimean Peninsula and making it again a part of Russia. Soviet
leader Nikita Khrushchev had transferred the strategic region from Russian
federation control to the Ukraine republic in 1954. Crimea remained base to
Russia's Black Sea fleet. Ethnic Russians are a majority of the population.

Also, Russian-speaking separatists in eastern Ukraine -- along the Russian
border -- began agitating, then fighting to break free of Kiev's control,
variously demanding autonomy, independence or to become a part of Russia.

As separatist fighters -- the West claims they have been given Russian heavy
arms and are backed by Russian forces -- pushed deeper into Ukraine, a
September peace conference drew up plans for a cease-fire and eventual steps toward
a political resolution.

The cease-fire never held, and the fighting between Ukrainian forces and the
separatist grew more intense. The separatists accumulated considerable ground
in the fighting, which the United Nations reports has claimed 5,300 lives.

Now there's a new peace plan. Hammered out in all-night negotiations this week,
it calls for a cease-fire to take effect Sunday. But since the deal was
announced, fighting has only increased, as Ukrainian forces battle to hold a
major rail hub in Debaltseve.

The town controls transport between the rebel-held regions of Donetsk and
Luhansk. Those regions are home to major heavy industrial complexes, many of
which produce weapons for Russia's military.

As part of the deal that calls for an end to fighting, both sides are to draw
back heavy weapons from the conflict line. Kiev is to write a new constitution
that would reflect the autonomy demands of the separatists. Ukraine would
retake control of its border with Russia. Moscow views the accord as a guarantee
Ukraine will not join NATO.

The agreement was heralded as a new chance for peace by French President
Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who arranged the deal at
negotiations that also involved Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and Russian
President Vladimir Putin.

Rebel leaders also signed on. US President Barack Obama's administration, which
has led a tough sanctions drive against Moscow over its actions in Crimea and
eastern Ukraine, has taken a wait-and-see attitude.

"The true test of today's accord will be in its full and unambiguous
implementation, including the durable end of hostilities and the restoration of
Ukrainian control over its border with Russia," the White House said in a
statement.

American officials are skeptical the deal will hold. Secretary of State John
Kerry put it bluntly: "Actions will be what matter now. We will judge the
commitment of Russia and the separatists by their actions, not their ords."

In the meantime, the administration has put off a decision on sending lethal
weapons to Ukraine and imposing additional sanctions on Russia. Putin, who so
far has proven impervious to Western sanctions and crashing oil prices that
threaten the entire Russian economy -- is a step closer to his goal of making certain
there won't be yet another NATO member along the country's western frontier.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial,
educational purposes.

TWO ESSAYS FROM TRANSCEND MEDIA
SERVICES, THE PEACE JOURNALISM PERSPECTIVE

Dear TMS subscriber , greetings.

TRANSCEND
Media Service brings to you its own Peace Journalism Perspective plus
a digest of the week’s relevant News, Analyses, Papers and Videos–in various
languages. . . .

Editorials by Johan Galtung and
articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated and
translated, provided a citation and link to the source, TRANSCEND Media
Service-TMS, is included. Please forward the WD to your colleagues, friends and
lists. Thank you, enjoy your reading.

Germany has become philo-semitic, fights racism, no residual
colonialism, rejection of war as instrument (except defensive), and seeks
cooperation with Russia. England, with the USA, challenges Russia.
Anglo-America is the most belligerent party in today’s world, residual
colonialism survives in the Commonwealth and in the use of English for
conquest; racism is rampant inside England.

You’ve heard everybody involved in the Ukraine conflict solemnly
declared that there is no military solution. And what do they all do? Right,
they militarise the situation further, use bellicose language, speak bad about
each other, take provocative steps, use propaganda and flex their military
muscles. These men – sorry, but they are all men – who are competent in war and
violence run our world.

168 HOURS: NEWS AND ANALYSIS, March 26,
2014. Breaking down the world into
geopolitical zones of influence will be better than chaos | 13:50 | March 26
2014 Print | Views: 54 Interview with
Russian politician Sergey Marcedonov -What do you think about Russia’s
activities in Ukraine’s Crimea? -Ukraine and the Crimea crisis should be
divided into several parts. The first part would be the situation in the
Crimea, the second one would be relations between Kiev and the Crimea, third –
relations between Russia and Ukraine, and fourth – international relations that
include relations between Russia and the West. When people say Russia does not
have interests it is very strange because Russia has put down its interests
long ago. In case of Ukraine Russia’s
interest is not to let Ukraine become a member of NATO or any other alliance.
The same is true about other post-Soviet countries. This theory has been
published long ago and Russia has been implementing it. Back in 1997, when NATO
was expanding due to Eastern Europe, Russia announced that it was the
continuation of the frozen war, and such expansion would be negative. The next
issue is the Black Sea and port. During the Soviet time the Crimea and Ukraine
were a part of a big country, and a significant part of the Black Sea port
infrastructure was concentrated in Sevastopol of the Crimea. When the Soviet
Union collapsed, 70 per cent of its fleet appeared to be out of its area. This
brought a lot of problems. These issues were negotiated for a long time but
when the revolution took place in Ukraine, there was a risk that the agreements
would not be enforced, and NATO would revise the status of Ukraine, and at that
time Russia started to act the way it is acting now. If there were no
pro-Russian attitude in the Crimea and if people do not want to go out of the
territory of Ukraine, Russia would not be able to do anything. There are
disputable issues in the world but neither Russia nor other countries are
interfering because there are no prerequisites.
MORE http://en.168.am/2014/03/26/1286.html

Ukraine: Anvil of the New Cold
War

To understand the present crisis over downed Malaysian flight
MH17, we need to look at the roots of the new Cold War.

·

A piece of the crashed Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 lies in the grass near the village of Hrabove, eastern
Ukraine. July 20, 2014. (AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka)

The Cold War is perhaps not even
remembered by this generation of Americans, beyond dim and distorted traces.
Yes, the power alignments in the world have shifted, for example, by the rise
of the BRICS and their opposition to Western finance capital. And yes, the rise
of China offsets the demise of the old Soviet Union. The Vatican is no longer
battling “godless communism.” Communism itself is a spent force.

But no new global paradigm has
come to dominance and, in that vacuum, the old Cold War premises arise to fill
the chatter-boxes of our media and cultural mentality.

Ukraine is the anvil on which the
new Cold War thinking is heating up.

It’s impossible to understand the
roots of the current Ukraine crisis over the downed airliner without
understanding the past, but the past is remembered as cliché on all sides. We
can agree, however, that the “new” Cold War began when Western strategists
sought to expand their sphere of influence all the way eastward across the
Ukraine to Russia’s border. That push, which seemed like the spoils of Cold War
victory to the Western triumphalists, ignored two salient realities. First,
eastern Ukraine was inhabited by millions of people who identified with
Russia’s language, culture and political orientation. Second, since it was
believed that the Soviet Union was “defeated”, the assumption was that Russia
lacked the will and capacity to fight back. Though both assumptions were proven
wrong on the battlefield in Georgia in 2008, the machinery of the West never
stopped churning and expanding.

Eventually, Russia took back
Crimea by force, in an offensive that was entirely predictable but seemed to
shock the Western mind. Ukraine was broken along historic ethnic lines. For a
brief moment, it appeared that a power-sharing arrangement might be negotiated.
There was no reason that Putin would send Russian troops to war over the
eastern Ukraine if peaceful coexistence was achievable. Putin accepted the
ascension of a new pro-Western elected president in Kiev and called for a
cease-fire and political settlement. But as often happens in proxy wars, the
proxies drove the dynamics. Ukraine’s army marched east, claiming a sovereignty
that the Russian-speakers refused to accept. Putin’s allies—the so-called
“pro-Russian separatists”—refused to surrender and complained loudly that the
Russians weren’t giving them enough support.

In the Western narrative, these
Russian-speakers weren’t really Ukrainian at all, or they were Russians in
disguise, or pawns of Moscow. That designation humiliated and angered them. In
the Western PR offensive, the Russians trained them, advised them and perhaps
even directed them to shoot down the airliner. And, of course, those alleged
Russian agents were carrying out the orders of the Kremlin. Putin is hardly
wrong when he says the catastrophe would not have happened if his calls for a
cease-fire were heeded. Instead, a ten-day cease-fire was terminated by Kiev on
June 10, surely with US support. No one has asked whether the US government
lobbied with Kiev to extend the cease-fire instead of pressing their offensive
eastward.The New York Timesreportedthat “Ukraine’s President, Petro O.
Poroshenko, let the latest cease-fire lapse and ordered his military to resume
efforts to crush the insurrection by force.” If he had extended the cease-fire
instead, the plane would not have been shot down.

It is insane for anyone to
believe that Putin would want to shoot down a plane carrying over 200 hundred
Europeans at a time when the European Union was debating whether to join the
United States in imposing harsh sanctions on Moscow. What makes more sense is
that no one in an official capacity anywhere wants to take the blame for an
unplanned moral, political and diplomatic catastrophe. If Putin bears
responsibility for the chain of escalation, so does Kiev and the West. In the
meantime, the West will continue freezing its Cold War position and Ukraine’s
armed forces will take their war towards the Russian border unless higher
authorities restrain them. No one has asked if Western forces are advising or
embedded with the Ukrainian military. Either way, the Kiev fighters can advance
all they desire, but they cannot pacify the east or predict Russia’s next move.
If they march into a trap, will the US feel obligated to dig them out?

The inevitable tightening of
Western sanctions will push Russia to exploit the economic contradictions
between the United States and European nations like Germany, and make Moscow
increase its links with the BRICS countries, especially the Chinese powerhouse.
As a sign of Russia’s trajectory, just before the airliner shootdown, Putin visited
Latin America, where he promptly forgave 90 percent of Cuba’s $32 billion
massive debt to the Russians, ending a two-decade dispute. Then Putin toured
six countries and sat down to dinner with four Latin American presidents. The
irony barely was noticed. The purpose of the 1960 US policy towards Cuba was to
separate the island from the Soviet sphere of interest. Now it is the United
States which is increasingly isolated diplomatically in its “backyard” while
Cuba is secure in a new Latin America with Russian support. If Cold War
thinking prevails, the Obama administration will continue funding illegal
“democracy programs” aimed at subverting the Cuban state. That could persuade
some in the Cuban leadership to resist normalization with the States, continuing
a Cold War standoff of many decades.

Meanwhile, on the other side of
the planet, America’s heralded new “pivot” to China is stalled in deep
contradictions. Lacking any alternative to the Cold War model, the US is
dangerously close to fighting two.

The question for progressives is
how to construct a compelling alternative to the Cold War model as much of the
world slides towards a new Dark Age of class struggle, climate crisis and
religious fundamentalism appearing on many continents.

In light of the course of events of the MH17 disaster, the
better historical comparison than the KAL 007 incident is the U.S. shooting
down of Iran Air 655 on 3 July 1988. - See more at:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156434#sthash.JFRwo8ER.dpuf

The
author teaches history at West Virginia University.

ALTERNATIVES
TO ARMED FORCE

Choose Diplomacy and Cooperation

The Nation’s editorial
of March 2-9, 2015 reveals the Doomsday Clock has been moved to 11:57, “the
closest we’ve been to doomsday in more than thirty years.” The two nuclear nations are moving toward
brinkmanship, while the Ukraine has suffered 5000 killed, 1.5 million refugees
and internally displaced, and is almost bankrupt. We need diplomacy not Cold War that could
turn Hot War. And the world needs
cooperation between the US/NATO and Russia for a host of problems. --Dick

Russia has
responded to the imposition of tougher U.S. and European sanctions by piling up
troops and munitions at the Ukrainian border. This is not evidence that sanctions
were the wrong strategy or that they didn't work -- they are still the right
move for the long term. At the moment, though, more creative thinking is needed
to halt the escalation of
hostilities.

It won't be
easy. The scope of the standoff over Ukraine is too great for Russia and the
West to achieve any grand settlement quickly. Such a deal will take time and
goodwill, both of which are now in short supply.

This week's
emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council provided an example of
how not to cool things down. Russia, which called the special session, declared that the Ukrainian
military had perpetrated a civilian "catastrophe" in Donetsk and
Lugansk, and called for the creation of humanitarian corridors to bring in food
and medical aid. No doubt concerned that Russia was preparing the diplomatic
ground to invade, under the guise of a "humanitarian" intervention,
Ukraine said no such crisis exists. The U.S. said there
was not even a need for the Security Council meeting.

By pushing back
in this way, however, Ukraine and the U.S. ignore the rising tension with
Russia and what's needed to bring it down. President Vladimir Putin cannot
afford to be perceived at home as losing in Ukraine. The new European and U.S.
sanctions and the recent success of the Ukrainian military operation are
forcing him to consider a greater armed intervention. Yet he knows that if he
chooses this path, it would trigger still tougher sanctions and could involve
him in a long and unpredictable war. That's an unattractive set of options, but
without some third way between capitulation and escalation, Putin is likely
to choose the latter.

As Georgia and
Moldova can attest, once armed Russian "peacekeepers" enter a
country, they are impossible to remove. Ukraine would spend the coming decades struggling
to retrieve its lost territories and worrying conflict might reignite.

[UN
Peacekeepers for Diplomacy Instead of Escalating Violence]

So how to find
Putin an off-ramp? One possibility is to agree with him that a humanitarian
crisis exists in eastern Ukraine and needs to be addressed. With an official UN tally of
1,367 dead, 117,000 displaced internally and as many as 740,000 fleeing to
Russia, that's hardly a stretch. Rather
than just accuse Putin of stoking conflict, why not offer to form an
international peacekeeping force, under the authority of the UN or the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe?

Modeling such a
force would admittedly be hard, not least because it would have to include a
Russian contingent and a cease-fire would have to be in place. Putting heavily
armed Russian troops in control of territory on their own border would be
difficult for Ukraine to accept, so the extent to which the peacekeepers were
armed would also need to be negotiated.

Both Russia and
the West have the leverage to push a cease-fire. Although the rebels have
refused to lay down their weapons in the past, they know that if Putin were to
withdraw support they would collapse within weeks. Ukraine would no doubt also
resist, thinking its armed forces are on a roll and can secure a military
solution. Ultimately, they can't, however, with Putin there to ensure the
rebels are not wiped out. The U.S. and the European Union, whose aid is keeping
Ukraine out of bankruptcy, can persuade the government in Kiev to play ball.

A peacekeeping
force could stop the bloodshed and freeze the status quo, ideally allowing some
time for everyone concerned to begin to address the issues at the heart of the
Ukraine crisis: Putin's determination that Ukraine should join his Eurasian Union and
the Ukrainians' preference to integrate with the EU. [The version I read in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 8-11-14 ended
here. –D]

There are
certainly risks to such a strategy: The peacekeeping force would have to be
assembled quickly, to keep Russia from pre-emptively sending in troops to
"prepare the ground." The force would probably need to exclude U.S.
troops, to minimize the Russian antagonism, and the right balance between
Russian and European monitors would have to be carefully negotiated.

These risks
would be worth taking if saying "yes" to Putin's peacekeeping force
would allow him to escape a costly choice for Russia and declare a small
victory at home. It might also create the time for a settlement that would
allow Ukraine to remain a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than a
battleground.

To contact the
senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View's editorials: David Shipley at
davidshipley@bloomberg.net.